Use Of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring Research Articles

Extracranial Complications in Monitored and Nonmonitored Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury in the BEST TRIP Trial and a Companion Observational Cohort

Extracranial complications occur commonly in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and can have implications for patient outcome. Patient-specific risk factors for developing these complications are not well studied, particularly in low and middle-income countries (LMIC). The study objective was to determine patient-specific risk factors for development of extracranial complications in TBI. We assessed the relationship between patient demographic and injury factors and incidence of extracranial complications using data collected September 2008-October 2011 from the BEST TRIP trial, a randomized controlled trial assessing TBI management protocolized on intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring versus imaging and clinical exam, and a companion observational patient cohort. Extracranial infections (55%), respiratory complications (19%), hyponatremia (27%), hypernatremia (27%), hospital acquired pressure ulcers (6%), coagulopathy (9%), cardiac arrest (10%), and shock (5%) occurred at a rate of ≥5% in our study population; overall combined rate of these complications was 82.3%. Tracheostomy in the intensive care unit (P < 0.001), tracheostomy timing (P= 0.025), mannitol and hypertonic saline doses (P < 0.001), brain-specific therapy days and brain-specific therapy intensity (P < 0.001), extracranial surgery (P < 0.001), and neuroworsening with pupil asymmetry (P= 0.038) were all significantly related to the development of one of these complications by univariable analysis. Multivariable analysis revealed ICP monitor use and brain-specific therapy intensity to be the most common factors associated with individual complications. Extracranial complications are common following TBI. ICP monitoring and treatment are related to extra-cranial complications. This supports the need for reassessing the risk-benefit balance of our current management approaches in the interest of improving outcome.

The effect of amantadine on acute cognitive disability after severe traumatic brain injury: An institutional pilot study

BackgroundAmantadine is used in the post-acute care setting to improve cognitive function after a traumatic brain injury. Its utility in the acute postinjury period is unknown. In this pilot study, we sought to examine the effect of amantadine on short-term cognitive disability among patients with a severe traumatic brain injury and hypothesized that patients receiving amantadine would have a greater improvement in disability throughout their acute hospitalization. MethodsWe performed a prospective, observational study of patients ≥18 years with severe traumatic brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale ≤8) at a level I trauma center between 2020 and 2022. Patients with penetrating trauma, death within 48 hours of admission, and no radiographic evidence of intracranial pathology were excluded. Patients were grouped according to whether they received amantadine. Our primary outcome was the change in cognitive disability, measured by the Disability Rating Scale (DRS), over the index hospitalization. ResultsThere were 55 patients in the cohort: 41.8% (n = 23) received amantadine and 58.2% (n = 32) did not. There were higher rates of motor vehicle collisions (65.2% vs 46.9%, P = .02), diffuse axonal injury (47.8% vs 18.8%, P = .02), intracranial pressure monitor use (73.9% vs 21.9%, P = .0001), and propranolol use (73.9% vs 21.9%, P = .0001) in the amantadine. There was a larger improvement in DRS scores among patients receiving amantadine (7.8 vs 3.6, P = .001), and amantadine independently predicted improvement in DRS scores (β, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.20–3.02, P = .03). Rates of discharge to traumatic brain injury rehabilitation were significantly higher in the amantadine group (73.9% vs 21.9%, P = .0002). ConclusionAmong patients with severe traumatic brain injury, amantadine use in the acute postinjury period may be associated with an improvement in cognitive disability and discharge to traumatic brain injury rehabilitation.

Perceived Utility of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference Consensus-Based Analysis and Recommendations.

Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is widely practiced, but the indications are incompletely developed, and guidelines are poorly followed. To study the monitoring practices of an established expert panel (the clinical working group from the Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference effort) to examine the match between monitoring guidelines and their clinical decision-making and offer guidance for clinicians considering monitor insertion. We polled the 42 Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference panel members' ICP monitoring decisions for virtual patients, using matrices of presenting signs (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] total or GCS motor, pupillary examination, and computed tomography diagnosis). Monitor insertion decisions were yes, no, or unsure (traffic light approach). We analyzed their responses for weighting of the presenting signs in decision-making using univariate regression. Heatmaps constructed from the choices of 41 panel members revealed wider ICP monitor use than predicted by guidelines. Clinical examination (GCS) was by far the most important characteristic and differed from guidelines in being nonlinear. The modified Marshall computed tomography classification was second and pupils third. We constructed a heatmap and listed the main clinical determinants representing 80% ICP monitor insertion consensus for our recommendations. Candidacy for ICP monitoring exceeds published indicators for monitor insertion, suggesting the clinical perception that the value of ICP data is greater than simply detecting and monitoring severe intracranial hypertension. Monitor insertion heatmaps are offered as potential guidance for ICP monitor insertion and to stimulate research into what actually drives monitor insertion in unconstrained, real-world conditions.

Racial Disparity in Placement of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring: A TQIP Analysis.

The Brain Trauma Foundation recommends intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Race is associated with worse outcomes after TBI. The reasons for racial disparities in clinical decision-making around ICP monitor placement remain unclear. We queried the TQIP database from 2017 to 2019 and included patients 16 years or older, with blunt severe TBI, defined as a head abbreviated injury score 3 or greater. Exclusion criteria were missing race, those without signs of life on admission, length of stay 1 day or less, and AIS of 6 in any body region. The primary outcome was ICP monitor placement, which was calculated using a Poisson regression model with robust SEs while adjusting for confounders. A total of 260,814 patients were included: 218,939 White, 29,873 Black, 8,322 Asian, 2,884 American Indian, and 796 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. Asian and American Indian patients had the highest rates of midline shift (16.5% and 16.9%). Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders had the highest rates of neurosurgical intervention (19.3%) and ICP monitor placement (6.5%). Asian patients were found to be 19% more likely to receive ICP monitoring (adjusted incident rate ratio 1.19; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; p = 0.003], and American Indian patients were 38% less likely (adjusted incident rate ratio 0.62; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.79; p < 0.001), compared with White patients, respectively. No differences were detected between White and Black patients. ICP monitoring use differs by race. Further work is needed to elucidate modifiable causes of this difference in the management of severe TBI.

Initial neurocritical care of severe traumatic brain injury: New paradigms and old challenges.

Early neurocritical care aims to ameliorate secondary traumatic brain injury (TBI) and improve neural salvage. Increased engagement of neurosurgeons in neurocritical care is warranted as daily briefings between the intensivist and the neurosurgeon are considered a quality indicator for TBI care. Hence, neurosurgeons should be aware of the latest evidence in the neurocritical care of severe TBI (sTBI). We conducted a narrative literature review of bibliographic databases (PubMed and Scopus) to examine recent research of sTBI. This review has several take-away messages. The concept of critical neuroworsening and its possible causes is discussed. Static thresholds of intracranial pressure (ICP) and cerebral perfusion pressure may not be optimal for all patients. The use of dynamic cerebrovascular reactivity indices such as the pressure reactivity index can facilitate individualized treatment decisions. The use of ICP monitoring to tailor treatment of intracranial hypertension (IHT) is not routinely feasible. Different guidelines have been formulated for different scenarios. Accordingly, we propose an integrated algorithm for ICP management in sTBI patients in different resource settings. Although hyperosmolar therapy and decompressive craniectomy are standard treatments for IHT, there is a lack high-quality evidence on how to use them. A discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of invasive ICP monitoring is included in the study. Addition of beta-blocker, anti-seizure, and anticoagulant medications to standardized management protocols (SMPs) should be considered with careful patient selection. Despite consolidated research efforts in the refinement of SMPs, there are still many unanswered questions and novel research opportunities for sTBI care.

Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Moderate Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The principal aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring and intracranial hypertension (IHT) in patients treated for moderate traumatic brain injury (TBI). A secondary objective was to assess factors associated with ICP monitoring. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify studies that assessed ICP monitoring in moderate TBI. The meta-analysis was performed by using a random-effects model. A total of 13 studies comprising 116,714 patients were pooled to estimate the overall prevalence of ICP monitoring and IHT (one episode or more of ICP > 20mm Hg) after moderate TBI. The prevalence rate for ICP monitoring was 18.3% (95% confidence interval 8.1-36.1%), whereas the proportion of IHT was 44% (95% confidence interval 33.8-54.7%). Three studies were pooled to estimate the prevalence of ICP monitoring according to Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) (≤ 10 vs. > 10). ICP monitoring was performed in 32.2% of patients with GCS ≤ 10 versus 15.2% of patients with GCS > 10 (p = 0.59). Both subgroups were highly heterogeneous.We found no other variables associated with ICP monitoring or IHT. The prevalence of ICP monitoring in moderate TBI is low, but the prevalence of IHT is high among patients undergoing ICP monitoring. Current literature is limited in size and quality and does not identify factors associated with ICP monitoring or IHT. Further research is needed to guide the optimal use of ICP monitoring in moderate TBI.

Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Patients With Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage: Insights From the SYNAPSE-ICU Study.

Uncertainties exist regarding the indications, management, and effect of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring and treatment on outcome in patients with spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). We performed an analysis of patients with spontaneous ICH enrolled in the SYNAPSE-ICU study, an international prospective observational study on the use of ICP monitoring. This study aimed to describe, in a large cohort of patients with spontaneous ICH admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), the clinical practice of ICP monitoring, the occurrence of intracranial hypertension, and its therapeutic management. We assessed in-hospital mortality and the association between ICP monitoring and 6-month mortality and outcome by a propensity score approach with inverse probability weighting. A total of 587 patients with ICH were included in this study; 281 (47.9%) received ICP monitoring. ICP-monitored patients, compared with nonmonitored patients, were younger (61 vs 67 years; p < 0.001), presented more frequently with both reactive pupils (67.2% vs 55.2%; p = 0.008), with better neurologic status at admission (Glasgow Coma Scale ≤8, 82.3% vs 88.8%; p = 0.038), and received higher therapy intensity level during the ICU stay. In 70.5% (170 out of 241) of ICP-monitored patients, the ICH score was equal to 3 or 4. Nearly half of monitored patients (46.6%) had at least one episode of ICP ≥20 mm Hg during the first week. An intraventricular catheter (53.6%) was the most frequently used device and was associated with fewer episodes of intracranial hypertension compared with the other monitoring devices (43.7% vs 64.9%, respectively). At weighted Cox regression model, ICP monitoring was associated with a significant reduction of 6-month mortality (hazard ratio 0.49 [95% CI 0.35-0.71; p = 0.001), but not with neurologic outcome (odds ratio 0.83 [95% CI 0.41-1.68]; p = 0.6077). ICP monitoring in ICH was utilized mainly in moderately severe cases. ICP monitoring was associated with a reduction of in-hospital and 6-month mortality but did not improve 6-month functional outcomes. Further research and randomized controlled trials to generate higher-level medical evidence to support guidelines regarding ICP use and treatment in patients with ICH are needed. SYNAPSE-ICU: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03257904.

Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in the Intensive Care Unit for Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Analysis of the CENTER-TBI China Registry.

Although the current guidelines recommend the use of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI), the evidence indicating benefit is limited. The present study aims to evaluate the impact of ICP monitoring on patients with sTBI in the intensive care unit (ICU). The patient data were obtained from the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury China Registry, a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal, observational, cohort study. Patients with sTBI who were admitted to 52 ICUs across China, managed with ICP monitoring or without, were analyzed in this study. Patients with missing information on discharge survival status, Glasgow Coma Scale score on admission to hospital, and record of ICP monitoring application were excluded from the analysis. Data on demographic characteristics, injury, clinical features, treatments, survival at discharge, discharge destination, and length of stay were collected and assessed. The primary end point was survival state at discharge, and death from any cause was considered the event of interest. A total of 2029 patients with sTBI were admitted to the ICU; 737 patients (36.32%) underwent ICP monitoring, and 1292 (63.68%) were managed without ICP monitoring. There was a difference between management with and without ICP monitoring on in-hospital mortality in the unmatched cohort (18.86% vs. 26.63%, p < 0.001) and the propensity-score-matched cohort (19.82% vs. 26.83%, p = 0.003). Multivariate logistic regressions also indicated that increasing age, higher injury severity score, lower Glasgow Coma Scale score, unilateral and bilateral pupillary abnormalities, systemic hypotension (SBP ≤ 90mm Hg), hypoxia (SpO2 < 95%) on arrival at the hospital, and management without ICP monitoring were associated with higher in-hospital mortality. However, the patients without ICP monitoring had a lower length of stay in the ICU (11.79 vs. 7.95days, p < 0.001) and hospital (25.96 vs. 21.71days, p < 0.001), and a higher proportion of survivors were discharged to the home with better recovery in self-care. Although ICP monitoring was not widely used by all of the centers participating in this study, patients with sTBI managed with ICP monitoring show a better outcome in overall survival. Nevertheless, the use of ICP monitoring makes the management of sTBI more complex and increases the costs of medical care by prolonging the patient's stay in the ICU or hospital.

Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Single Institution Experience in a Middle-Income Country.

Introduction: Severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major public health problem usually resulting in mortality or severe disabling morbidities of the victims. Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is recently recognized as an imperative modality in the management of severe TBI, whereas growing evidence, based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), suggests that ICP monitoring does not affect the outcome when compared with clinical and radiological data-based management. Also, ICP monitoring carries a considerable risk of intracranial infection that cannot be overlooked. The aim of this study is to assess the different aspects of our current local institutional management of severe TBI using non-invasive ICP monitoring for a potential need to change our management strategy.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our data of TBI from June 2019 through January 2020. Patients with severe TBI were identified. Their demographics, Glasgow coma score (GCS) at presentation, treatments received, and imaging data were extracted from the charts. Glasgow outcome scale extended (GOS-E) at 6 months was also assessed for the patients.Results: Twenty patients with severe TBI were identified on chart review. Ten patients received only medical treatment measures to lower the ICP, whereas the other 10 patients had additional surgical interventions. In one patient, a ventriculostomy tube was inserted to monitor ICP and to drain cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). This was complicated by ventriculostomy-associated infection (VAI) and the tube was removed. In our cohort, the total mortality rate was 40%. The average GOS-E for the survivor patients managed without ICP monitoring based on the clinical and radiological data was 6.2 at 6 months follow-up. The 6-month overall good outcome, based on GOS-E, was 33.3%.Conclusion: Although recent guidelines advocate for the use of ICP monitoring in the management of severe TBI, they remain underutilized in our practice due to many factors. External ventricular drains were mainly used to drain CSF; however, the higher rates of VAIs in our institution compared with the literature-reported rates are not in favor of the use of ICP monitoring. We recommend doing a comparative study between our current practice using clinical-and radiological-based management and subdural or intraparenchymal bolts. More structured RCTs are needed to validate these findings in our setting.

Continuous Electroencephalogram and Antiseizure Medication Use in an International Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury Population.

Electrographic seizures are frequent and associated with worse outcomes following traumatic brain injury (TBI). Despite this, the use of continuous electroencephalogram (cEEG) remains low. Our study describes cEEG usage and treatment dosing antiseizure medications (ASMs) in an international pediatric TBI population, hypothesizing that children monitored with cEEG have an increased rate of treatment ASMs because of electrographic seizure detection, compared with children who are not monitored with cEEG. This subanalysis of the TBI cohort of the international PANGEA study included children, 7days to 17years of age, with acute neurological insults admitted to pediatric intensive care units. We analyzed demographics, injury severity, and therapies including prophylactic or treatment ASMs. We evaluated the relationships between cEEG use, seizure frequency, and receipt of treatment ASMs. [Formula: see text] or Fisher's exact test was used to analyze categorical variables, and the Kruskal-Wallis or Mann-Whitney U-test was used for continuous variables. Multivariable analysis for treatment ASM use was performed using logistic regression. One hundred-twenty-three of 174 patients with TBI were included. Twenty-seven patients (21.9%) underwent cEEG at any point during pediatric intensive care unit admission. Preexisting seizure disorder (18.2% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.014) and neuromuscular blockade use (52.4% vs. 24.1%, p = 0.011) were more frequently observed in the group monitored on cEEG when compared with those that were not. Presenting median Glasgow Coma Scale score was worse in the cEEG group (7 vs. 9, p = 0.044). There was no significant difference in age, use of intracranial pressure monitoring, or hyperosmolar therapy between the cEEG monitored and nonmonitored groups. Patients who were monitored on cEEG were more likely to receive a treatment dose ASM than those without cEEG monitoring (66.7% vs. 28.1%, p = 0.0002). When compared with those without treatment ASM, the treatment ASM group had more electrographic seizures on their first electroencephalogram following injury (51.6% vs. 4%, p = 0.0001) and more clinical seizures (55.8% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001). Children monitored with cEEG after TBI have an increased prescription of treatment ASMs and clinical and electrographic seizures. The increased rate of treatment ASMs in the cEEG group may indicate increased recognition of electrographic seizures.

Intracranial pressure monitoring in patients with acute brain injury in the intensive care unit (SYNAPSE-ICU): an international, prospective observational cohort study

The indications for intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring in patients with acute brain injury and the effects of ICP on patients' outcomes are uncertain. The aims of this study were to describe current ICP monitoring practises for patients with acute brain injury at centres around the world and to assess variations in indications for ICP monitoring and interventions, and their association with long-term patient outcomes. We did a prospective, observational cohort study at 146 intensive care units (ICUs) in 42 countries. We assessed for eligibility all patients aged 18 years or older who were admitted to the ICU with either acute brain injury due to primary haemorrhagic stroke (including intracranial haemorrhage or subarachnoid haemorrhage) or traumatic brain injury. We included patients with altered levels of consciousness at ICU admission or within the first 48 h after the brain injury, as defined by the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) eye response score of 1 (no eye opening) and a GCS motor response score of at least 5 (not obeying commands). Patients not admitted to the ICU or with other forms of acute brain injury were excluded from the study. Between-centre differences in use of ICP monitoring were quantified by using the median odds ratio (MOR). We used the therapy intensity level (TIL) to quantify practice variations in ICP interventions. Primary endpoints were 6 month mortality and 6 month Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) score. A propensity score method with inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to estimate the association between use of ICP monitoring and these 6 month outcomes, independently of measured baseline covariates. This study is registered with ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT03257904. Between March 15, 2018, and April 30, 2019, 4776 patients were assessed for eligibility and 2395 patients were included in the study, including 1287 (54%) with traumatic brain injury, 587 (25%) with intracranial haemorrhage, and 521 (22%) with subarachnoid haemorrhage. The median age of patients was 55 years (IQR 39-69) and 1567 (65%) patients were male. Considerable variability was recorded in the use of ICP monitoring across centres (MOR 4·5, 95% CI 3·8-4·9 between two randomly selected centres for patients with similar covariates). 6 month mortality was lower in patients who had ICP monitoring (441/1318 [34%]) than in those who were not monitored (517/1049 [49%]; p<0·0001). ICP monitoring was associated with significantly lower 6 month mortality in patients with at least one unreactive pupil (hazard ratio [HR] 0·35, 95% CI 0·26-0·47; p<0·0001), and better neurological outcome at 6 months (odds ratio 0·38, 95% CI 0·26-0·56; p=0·0025). Median TIL was higher in patients with ICP monitoring (9 [IQR 7-12]) than in those who were not monitored (5 [3-8]; p<0·0001) and an increment of one point in TIL was associated with a reduction in mortality (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·91-0·98; p=0·0011). The use of ICP monitoring and ICP management varies greatly across centres and countries. The use of ICP monitoring might be associated with a more intensive therapeutic approach and with lower 6-month mortality in more severe cases. Intracranial hypertension treatment guided by monitoring might be considered in severe cases due to the potential associated improvement in long-term clinical results. University of Milano-Bicocca and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

Real-world appraisal of intracranial pressure monitoring

The management of elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) is an essential component of modern neurocritical care for acute brain injury. Direct and continuous monitoring of ICP has generally been considered the most reliable evaluation of ICP and is an important aspect of care for patients with severe brain injury. ICP monitoring is recommended in the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines and its use is well established in managing severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). 1 Kolias AG Rubiano AM Figaji A Servadei F Hutchinson PJ Traumatic brain injury: global collaboration for a global challenge. Lancet Neurol. 2019; 18: 136-137 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar The deterioration of patients with intracerebral haemorrhage 2 Cordonnier C Demchuk A Ziai W Anderson CS Intracerebral haemorrhage: current approaches to acute management. Lancet. 2018; 392: 1257-1268 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (177) Google Scholar or subarachnoid haemorrhage 3 Macdonald RL Delayed neurological deterioration after subarachnoid haemorrhage. Nat Rev Neurol. 2014; 10: 44-58 Crossref PubMed Scopus (428) Google Scholar might also be associated with increased ICP, indicating the importance of ICP monitoring in these patients. Intracranial pressure monitoring in patients with acute brain injury in the intensive care unit (SYNAPSE-ICU): an international, prospective observational cohort studyThe use of ICP monitoring and ICP management varies greatly across centres and countries. The use of ICP monitoring might be associated with a more intensive therapeutic approach and with lower 6-month mortality in more severe cases. Intracranial hypertension treatment guided by monitoring might be considered in severe cases due to the potential associated improvement in long-term clinical results. Full-Text PDF Intracranial pressure monitoring and unfavourable outcomesI read with interest the Article by Chiara Robba and colleagues,1 who reported the findings of the SYNAPSE-ICU observational study of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring in patients with acute brain injury. The BEST TRIP trial2 has been the only randomised controlled trial of ICP monitoring to date, and it showed no benefit of this approach in patients with traumatic brain injury. The BEST TRIP trial, however, appears to be the primary foil for SYNAPSE-ICU. These two studies asked different research questions. Full-Text PDF Intracranial pressure monitoring and unfavourable outcomes – Authors' replyWe thank Randall Chesnut and Leonardo Welling and colleagues for their comments on our Article on the SYNAPSE-ICU observational study.1 Chesnut compared the objectives and outcomes of the study with those of the BEST TRIP randomised trial.2 We agree that the aims of SYNAPSE-ICU were fundamentally different to those of BEST TRIP. In SYNAPSE-ICU, we described practice variation and assessed the effect of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring on long-term outcomes. A general question discussed daily in intensive care units is about whether to insert an ICP monitoring device after severe acute brain damage. Full-Text PDF Intracranial pressure monitoring and unfavourable outcomesFor prediction of brain injury, intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is deemed essential by evidence-based guidelines.1 However, in resource-poor countries, ICP monitoring can be considered a luxury. For many patients in these regions, the management of intracranial hypertension in acute neurological situations is based on radiological assessment.1 However, findings on imaging do not correlate directly with the occurrence of intracranial hypertension.1,2 Full-Text PDF

Is There an Age Cutoff for Intracranial Pressure Monitoring?: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank.

Despite mostly favorable past evidence for use of intracranial pressure monitoring (ICPM), more recent data question not only the indications but also the utility of ICPM. The Fourth Edition Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines offer limited indications for ICPM. Evidence supports ICPM for reducing mortality in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and cites decreased survival in elderly patients. All patients ≥ 18years of age with isolated TBI, head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) ≥ 3, and a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≤ 8 between 2008 and 2014 were included from the National Trauma Data Bank. Exclusion criteria were head AIS = 6 and death within 24hours. Patients with and without ICPM were compared using TBI-specific variables. Patients were then matched via propensity-score matching (PSM), and the odds ratio (OR) of death with ICPM was determined using logistic regression modeling for 8 different age strata. A total of 23,652 patients with a mean age of 56years, median head AIS of 4, median GCS of 3, and overall mortality of 29.2% were analyzed. After PSM, ICPM was associated with death beginning at the age stratum of 56-65 years. Intracranial pressure monitoring was associated with survival beginning at the age-group 36-45years. Based on a large propensity-matched sample of TBI patients, ICPM was not associated with improved survival for TBI patients above 55years of age. Until level 1 evidence is available, this age threshold should be considered for further prospective study in determining indications for ICPM.

The Association Between Arterial Oxygen Level and Outcome in Neurocritically Ill Patients is not Affected by Blood Pressure

BackgroundIn neurocritically ill patients, one early mechanism behind secondary brain injury is low systemic blood pressure resulting in inadequate cerebral perfusion and consequent hypoxia. Intuitively, higher partial pressures of arterial oxygen (PaO2) could be protective in case of inadequate cerebral circulation related to hemodynamic instability.Study purposeWe examined whether the association between PaO2 and mortality is different in patients with low compared to normal and high mean arterial pressure (MAP) in patients after various types of brain injury.MethodsWe screened the Finnish Intensive Care Consortium database for mechanically ventilated adult (≥ 18) brain injury patients treated in several tertiary intensive care units (ICUs) between 2003 and 2013. Admission diagnoses included traumatic brain injury, cardiac arrest, subarachnoid and intracranial hemorrhage, and acute ischemic stroke. The primary exposures of interest were PaO2 (recorded in connection with the lowest measured PaO2/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio) and the lowest MAP, recorded during the first 24 h in the ICU. PaO2 was grouped as follows: hypoxemia (< 8.2 kPa, the lowest 10th percentile), normoxemia (8.2–18.3 kPa), and hyperoxemia (> 18.3 kPa, the highest 10th percentile), and MAP was divided into equally sized tertiles (< 60, 60–68, and > 68 mmHg). The primary outcome was 1-year mortality. We tested the association between hyperoxemia, MAP, and mortality with a multivariable logistic regression model, including the PaO2, MAP, and interaction of PaO2*MAP, adjusting for age, admission diagnosis, premorbid physical performance, vasoactive use, intracranial pressure monitoring use, and disease severity. The relationship between predicted 1-year mortality and PaO2 was visualized with locally weighted scatterplot smoothing curves (Loess) for different MAP levels.ResultsFrom a total of 8290 patients, 3912 (47%) were dead at 1 year. PaO2 was not an independent predictor of mortality: the odds ratio (OR) for hyperoxemia was 1.16 (95% CI 0.85–1.59) and for hypoxemia 1.24 (95% CI 0.96–1.61) compared to normoxemia. Higher MAP predicted lower mortality: OR for MAP 60–68 mmHg was 0.73 (95% CI 0.64–0.84) and for MAP > 68 mmHg 0.80 (95% CI 0.69–0.92) compared to MAP < 60 mmHg. The interaction term PaO2*MAP was nonsignificant. In Loess visualization, the relationship between PaO2 and predicted mortality appeared similar in all MAP tertiles.ConclusionsDuring the first 24 h of ICU treatment in mechanically ventilated brain injured patients, the association between PaO2 and mortality was not different in patients with low compared to normal MAP.

Letter to the Editor Regarding “Use of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury”

Letter to the Editor Regarding “Use of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury”

In Reply to the Letter to the Editor Regarding “Use of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury”

In Reply to the Letter to the Editor Regarding “Use of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury”

Use of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

The Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF) recommends intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring for all salvageable patients with an abnormal computed tomography (CT) scan and a Glasgow Coma Scale <9. Studies have shown that compliance with this recommendation is low. We sought to obtain contemporary national rates of ICP monitor placement in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Patients from the National Trauma Data Bank from 2013 to 2017 who met BTF criteria for ICP monitoring were included. Placement of an intraparenchymal ICP monitor or an external ventricular drain was queried. Binary logistic regression was used to determine factors that influenced the placement of an ICP monitor. A total of 21,374 patients with severe TBI and an abnormal CT scan were included in the study. An ICP monitor was placed in 6543 patients (30.6%). ICP monitor placement increased modestly from 28.6% in 2013 to 32.8% in 2017. The pooled odds of ICP monitor placement between 2014 and 2017 were not different from 2013 (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.09), but the adjusted odds of ICP monitor placement in 2017 were significantly greater (odds ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.30). Treatment at a teaching hospital, subdural hematoma, multiple intracranial abnormalities on CT, and greater Injury Severity Score were associated with ICP monitor placement, whereas older age was negatively associated with ICP monitor placement. The rate of ICP monitoring in patients with severe TBI who meet BTF criteria is low and increased only slightly from 2013 to2017.

Neuromonitoring in the severe traumatic brain injury. Spanish Trauma ICU Registry (RETRAUCI)

ObjectiveTo analyze the use of intracranial pressure (ICP) and cerebral oximetry monitoring in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) according to the Spanish Trauma ICU Registry (RETRAUCI). MethodsWe included TBI patients with Glasgow Coma Scale score ≤8. Hypotheses were tested using the Student-T or Wilcoxon tests (quantitative variables) and the Chi-square test (categorical variables). Multivariate analysis using logistic regression was performed to analyze the variables associated with the use of ICP monitoring. ResultsWe analyzed 1463 patients. Age 49.1 years. Males 1130 (77.3%). Mechanism of injury: falls in 350 cases (23.9%). ISS 27.9. Uni- or bilateral mydriasis was present in 39.3% of the patients. Neurosurgical intervention within 24h was performed in 331 patients (22.7%). ICP was monitored in 635 patients (45.1%), pbtO2 in 122 patients (8.6%), SjVO2 in 19 patients (1.34%) and NIRS was used in 25 cases (1.77%). In the multivariate analysis, age, bilateral mydriasis at admission and previous use of antiplatelets or anticoagulants was inversely related with ICP monitoring. Severity of injury and the need of neurosurgical intervention increased the probability of ICP monitoring. ConclusionsOur study shows a picture of ICP monitoring in severe TBI patients in our environment. Use of cerebral oximetry techniques is very limited.

Statewide Trends in Intracranial Pressure Monitor Use in 36,915 Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in a Mature Trauma System over the Past 18 Years

Intracranial pressure (ICP)-guided therapy has been the mainstay of treatment of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), but recent data have questioned its efficacy. The aim of this study was to demonstrate trends in compliance to TBI guidelines and use of ICP-guided care in a mature trauma system. A retrospective analysis was conducted of 36,915 patients with severe TBI collected by the Pennsylvania Trauma Systems Foundation. The registry includes all patients >18 years old with a diagnosis of TBI with a Glasgow Coma Scale score ≤8 who were admitted from January 2000 to December2017. Of 36,915 patients, 73.6% were men with a median age of 43.0 ± 21.3 years. An ICP monitor was placed in 16.3% of all patients. The rate of ICP monitoring ranged from 17.8% of patients in 2000-2004 to 16.7% in 2005-2009, 16.4% in 2010-2014, and 12.8% in 2015-2017 (P< 0.001). The most statistically significant decrease was noted from 2014 (16.4%) to 2015 (14.1%, P= 0.042). The percent decrease in ICP monitoring from 2000-2014 to 2015-2017 was equivalent for patients with Glasgow Coma Scale scores of 3-5 (-4.0%) and 6-8 (-4.5%). As studies emerged that demonstrated unclear benefit of ICP monitoring in improving care in patients with severe TBI, there was a significant statewide decline in the use of ICP monitoring after 2014 among all TBI subpopulations despite noteworthy limitations in the aforementioned studies and clear recommendations from the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines.

Respect your elders: effects of ageing on intracranial pressure monitor use in traumatic brain injury

BackgroundThe Brain Trauma Foundation recommends intracranial pressure (ICP) monitor placement for patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Adherence with these guidelines in elderly patients is unknown. We hypothesized that...